In our interactions with Satan and with God we are left with moral choices that are truly ours. Satan does not have the power to impede our free wil, and God does not have the desire to do so, since the free will is a gift He Himself gave us.
This is not to say that we never face impediments, such as economic or physiological limitations, natural obstacles etc. But in the sphere of moral choices we always have achievable choices for good or evil.
Yes, God knows all our decisions, past, present and future. Further — you didn’t ask, but I think it is appropriate to bring this in at this point,— God does lead His Elect but He does so without withdrawing the gift of free will. In fact, those trials that we undergo are the manifestations of His leadership. I mention that so that the reader does not begin to imagine a distant clockmaker God of the enlightenment Deist heresies.
You are muddying the water about “freedom” here. You have mixed some issues about capacity to perform with issues about free will to choose. You have made physical limitations equivalent to an impediment about what you might want to choose in a matter. And this leaves you arguing both sides of an issue: There are no impediments to “free will”, but there are impediments to “free will”.
But, you cannot have both sides if you wish to teach this idea to reasonable people. The “...economic or physiological limitations, natural obstacles etc.” cannot be actual impediments according to your first definition. You have categorically stated that you believe in “free will” as the quality of being utterly free (”without impediment”) to choose any of a group of selections.
“Free will” may have to take physical limitations into account as it considers the selections available, but its choosing among those selections must be utterly free from influence at all. Otherwise you are not as “free” as you might feel. Are you prepared to call that “limited will” when it involves a physical situation?
Thus, to say this “free will” is only operative in the area of morals will require you to understand what a moral choice is and what a physical choice is. Was it a “moral” issue for the disciples to follow Jesus when he stopped by their fishing operation and said, “Follow me.”? Were they “free” because it was moral, or “limited” because it included possible physical limitations?
Again, let’s settle this...according to your definition(s), impediments cannot exist to free will, otherwise you would not have “free will”. Correct?
You have in this post mixed the issues about physical capacity with issues about free will. According to your prior definitions, there are no impediments to free will, otherwise the will would not be free. Thus, physical limitations may be a consideration that limit the number of your selections, but they could not technically be considered influences to the decision among available selections. If they could, then you no longer have “free will.” This is by your definition.
For example, if you don’t own blue sox, then the blue sox/green sox choice would not be in the realm of free will. You could not choose blue, if you wanted to. But, that is not a limitation to “free will”. If it is, then you have a form of “limited will”. Are you prepared to acknowledge that?
Your definition must stick to, “Among available selections, there exists absolutely no influences (except your will) affecting your choice.” Correct?